Language Switcher

SOGI Casebook chapters Archives: Partnership benefits and recognition

Lewis v. Harris, Supreme Court of New Jersey, United States (26 October 2006)

Procedural Posture Seven same-sex couples brought suit challenging New Jersey’s laws restricting civil marriage to the union of a man and a woman. They argued that these laws violated the liberty and equal protection guarantees of the New Jersey Constitution. When the seven couples applied for marriage licences, the licensing officials told them that the […]

Communication No. 941/2000: Australia, CCPR/C/78/D/941/2000, Mr. Edward Young v. Australia, September 18, 2003

The facts as presented by the author 2.1 The author was in a same-sex relationship with a Mr. C for 38 years. Mr. C was a war veteran, for whom the author cared in the last years of his life. He died on 20 December 1998, at the age of 73. On 1 March 1999, […]

Satchwell v. President of the Republic of South Africa and Another, Constitutional Court of South Africa (25 July 2002)

Procedural Posture The applicant, Satchwell, brought suit against the President of the Republic of South Africa to obtain the payment of spousal benefits to her same-sex partner under the Judges Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act 88 of 1989. Counsel for the President argued that, because South Africa did not recognise same-sex marriage at the […]

Egan v. Canada, Supreme Court of Canada (25 May 1995)

Procedural Posture Egan and Nesbit, the appellants, brought suit in trial court seeking a declaration that the definition of “spouse” in the Old Age Security Act contravened Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The trial court dismissed the action and the court of appeal upheld the judgment. The appellant appealed. Facts […]

El-Al Israel Airlines Ltd v. Danielowitz, Israeli Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice (30 November 1994)

Procedural Posture The respondent applied to the Regional Labour Court for a declaration that the employment benefits that he received for his male partner should be the same as those received by his colleagues who had opposite-sex spouses or companions. The Regional Labour Court held that, in refusing to confer the same benefits on same-sex […]